3 ms·
I would not want to work in a place where it's hard to fire poor performers. My preference would be to make it easy to fire, but provide a sufficient safety ne
by DenisM 16y ago
I would not want to work in a place where it's hard to fire poor performers.
My preference would be to make it easy to fire, but provide a sufficient safety net, so that people are not fearful of the temporary disruption.
As it is now, firing someone for poor performance at one large American software company I worked for (WA state) takes 6 month. They have to be told they aren't doing well, then their every step is documented, and they are continuously told how to improve, and only after they fail to heed the warnings they get fired. People who steal or harass others get fired immediately, but otherwise it's a long slog to kick someone out. All this song and dance is done to protect against lawsuits. It's a drag on the business, and probably a deterrent to hiring.
- arghnoname 16y agoGiving people time to improve is nice. It's a balance. If someone could be a good performer but is going through some issues, etc, and with some time or a warning or some such thing, return to or become a good performer again, that's a win for everyone. Recruitment is expensive and when corporations can help their employers and their bottom line at the same time, this is a good thing. Unfortunately when you have these sort of blanket policies that are more necessary in large organizations, the guy in a temporary crisis and the person who got hired somehow but can't spell their name get the same treatment. I think the balance is to give enough time that good people who have slipped can get back on track, but not so much that it be too heavily abused by less capable employees who would probably ultimately be happier somewhere more in fitting with their ability.